Guaranteed Appointments

May 25 2010

In this life there are few guarantees. The old joke says the only two things for sure in this life are death and taxes. Used to be, if you were a United Methodist pastor, you could add “an appointment” to that list. For quite a while, the United Methodist Church has promised it’s fully ordained clergy that they will always have an appointment so long as they are competent and do not violate their ethical commitments. If the clergy are faithful to their calling, the church will ensure them a position. This promise has allowed clergy to speak freely in the pulpit at tough times when congregations might not have appreciated a prophetic word. It has allowed conferences to move clergy to appointments where their talents can be used effectively with little regard to other concerns (like where the clergy person might choose to live).

However, a new proposal would change just one word in the Discipline. That small change has big implications:

The United Methodist Book of Discipline states elders in good standing who honor their ordination covenant to the itinerate ministry and who faithfully and effectively fulfill their ministerial duties and attend to their annual continuing education requirements shall be continued under appointment by the bishop.

In its interim report, the commission recommends changing the language from “shall” to “may” continue to be appointed.

Changing that one word means that clergy would no longer be certain of a position. Instead, each year, they would be subject to the bishop’s appointment process – not only to move, but even just to have a job.

Now, I realize that for most people, job security is an issue they have to live with. When most people don’t perform well in their jobs, they risk losing their jobs. And I also realize that guaranteeing clergy an appointment makes it impossible for bishops to hold their clergy accountable to standards of excellence. I also realize that church decline has everyone scrambling for a solution – and now, it seems, a scapegoat. But, getting rid of the guaranteed appointment will do nothing to address the problems we face as a church.

No doubt, we need effective leadership. We need a wholesale focus on attracting the best of our young people into the ministry. This is difficult in a climate where theology is among the lowest paying college majors, the perception of clergy in our communities is diminishing, and we saddle our seminary students with impossible debt. Add to that a 40 year track record of decline and now (possibly) the end of any job security and the ministry is not looking like a good career move. In my conference, we are closing and merging churches, eliminating associate positions, and asking more and more clergy to serve in less-than-full-time appointments. The trend is pretty clear – and it is scary.

The suggested change to the Discipline removes the guaranteed appointment, but it does nothing to address opportunity for clergy to advance, assistance with mountains of debt, practical job training for clergy, nor does it offer transitional assistance for those clergy that are deemed unappointable. If you have a $100,000 seminary degree and the church won’t give you a job, who will? More than that, such a change does nothing to address ineffective and shrinking churches. The assumption is that the pastor is the problem. Sure, the pastor is part of the problem. But changing institutions is no small task, and the church is notoriously reluctant to change. I wonder what the outcry would be if we empowered our bishops to arbitrarily close ineffective churches. What if the churches were told that they “may” continue to operate from year to year?

The appointment and itinerate process have served the church well for many years. But it is time to admit that their day is gone. A comprehensive reform of the appointment process would be welcome. It is also time to take a hard look at the role of bishops, district superintendents and other conference staff. Instead of asking churches to fund a layer of administration that is mostly invisible to them, why not expect more from our conference leadership? Do we really think that bishops are in a good position to evaluate clergy and appoint them in creative ways that foster effective ministry? My guess is that the problem is much bigger than the burden of guaranteed appointments. It’s endemic to our now-out-moded structure.

In the absence of other major changes, eliminating the guaranteed appointment will do little to help our church. Instead, it will alienate many clergy and further discourage new ones. What if we took a pro-active approach:

1. Start seriously funding clergy education. Promise every seminary student that their debt will be forgiven after five years of service. Consolidate some seminaries – do what has to be done – to make this promise possible.

2. Provide real professional training to our clergy so that they are equipped for the reality of their work. A seminary education is great – but it is not enough. Practical leadership training needs to be ongoing. Most conferences are horrible at this.

3. Reform the appointment process. Require churches to provide plans for vitality before they receive their pastor. Hold them accountable and refuse to appoint clergy to impossible situations. Make churches and clergy covenant together for success and actually follow-up on them and bench mark their progress. If guaranteed appointments must go, make all appointments go and let churches hire their clergy and let clergy find their churches.

4. Pressure ineffective churches to close and sell their assets to fund new, creative and/or successful ventures. Fund success. Liquidate failure. Promise clergy that closing an ineffective church is a positive move for their careers.

5. Aggressively strategize for church effectiveness across the conference. Don’t leave it up to independent churches who seldom think beyond their own walls. Use the conference structure to build strategic church starts and re-vitalization efforts based on solid demographics. Create teams of clergy who can work together to build larger, stronger churches and reduce the “lone-ranger” phenomenon. Regional churches should be our strength, since we are organized in regional bodies.

Those are just some ideas. There are many more out there. All I’m trying to say is that simply eliminating the guaranteed appointment will do very little.

Comments

Daniel

What an excellent post, with many ideas that transfer between denominations. In the UCC, of course, there is some admiration of systems that have the job security of the UMC and Episcopalians, even as we have a significantly different system. But the issues of systemic leadership funding, support of local churches and effective partnership between them and the regional and national settings, are growing by the day rather than being resolved by the day. It's a great time to be the church, but the challenges are daunting. Thanks for the linkback!

yahoo

While reviewing pros and cons on the guaranteed appointment for clergy, a major issue seems to have not been properly commented whether or not a given congregation is properly nourished under the properly nourished in a good social or family environment.
The ministry is the process of once’ lifetime spiritual evolution during the dedicated pastoral life.
I observed many successful clergies in latter although once so lightly treated as incompetent.
Thus, the congregation has to provide mutually acceptable civility in mutually nourishable ground.
According to our family experience in the Korean United Methodist Church and Institute, New York, as long as one has a strong personal ties with the district superintendent and some clergies closed to the episcopacy, even the looting the church treasury could be done very easily without any objection, of course he has to have a group of power hungry supporters who are seeking for any status in any form in any means, no any moral requirement.
Rev. Won Tae Chae was skilled able navigator in the murky stream of his own creation, which was only possible in the naive immigrant church.
He had a moonlighting full time job at New York Theological Seminary for ten years while the congregation in disarray. Who cares? After he was removed, always, the same kind replacement assigned as if in mob connection. In the incidents, why these guys need any job guarantee when they have their own source of the juice?
Last twenty years, the historic church has been under seize of like these the well trained dishonest clergies and supers, etc. Needless today, the flow of the street guys comes to manage the church. It is noticed once the course established there is endless human resources of the kind to fill in.
When Rev. Won Tae Cha group took over the church treasury, he filed three lawsuits against us to cover up the looting. For one case, they charge my son and me as attempted mass murders, place us on the trial at the New York State Supreme Court –my son
demanded all damages $8,000. Now Rev. Cha works for the Bishop Jeremiah J. Park - very smelly. They should return the stolen church money. Anything can go even in the church if one has the money and power.
I wonder, If the guaranteed appointment system established, like our church will disappear in time unless the street people stops coming in force to inherit the oppressive corrupt offices.
I have noticed many questionable characters are serving as trustees or directors in the church organizations.
I have tried to reflect our experiences to the bishops and other clergies.
So far no response from any Jesus people as we were not black enough nor white enough at all. Needless to say, it seems to be the moral climate of UMC, very insensitive to any church moral issues but the job.
I warmed our young assistant pastors not to be a tool of the corrupt ministry. Speaking out is risking their jobs.
Thus, according to the experience, the UMC’s immediate critical issue is the moral crisis to urgently implement an “in-house cleaning.” Then, who needs a guarantee? Endangered species.
How this story could be told to the Jesus people?
IS there anybody in UMC?
Reference; Website. :: 기독일보 Christianity Daily How long the church scandals should go without punishment? ... KOREAN UNITED METHODIST CHURCH AND INSTITUTE, REVEREND WON TAE CHA, YOUNG SO KIM, ...